Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 1:3 - 1:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_1:3. As the apostle has first stated the personal object of his thanksgiving, so now follows a further statement of its material object. 1Th_1:3 is therefore a parallel clause to μνείαν … ἡμῶν (1Th_1:2), in which μνημονεύοντες corresponds to μνείαν ποιούμενοι , ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου … Χριστοῦ to ὑμῶν after μνείαν , and lastly, ἔμπροσθεν … ἡμῶν to ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν . Schott, Koch, and Auberlen (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, Th. X., Bielef. 1864) incorrectly understand 1Th_1:3 as causal; the statement of the cause follows in 1Th_1:4.
ἀδιαλείπτως ] unceasingly does not belong to the preceding μνείαν ποιούμενοι (Luther, Bullinger, Balduin, Er. Schmid, Harduin, Benson, Moldenhauer, Koch, Bloomfield, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Auberlen), for, as an addition inserted afterwards, it would drag, but to μνημονεύοντες (Calvin and others), so that it begins the new clause with emphasis.
μνημονεύειν is not intransitive: to be mindful of (Er. Schmid: memoria repetentes; Fromond: memores non tam in orationibus sed ubique; Auberlen), but transitive, referring to the making mention of them in prayer.
ὑμῶν ] is, by Oecumenius, Erasmus (undecidedly), Vatablus, Calvin, Zwingli, Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Hunnius, Balduin, regarded as the object of μνημονεύοντες standing alone, whilst ἕνεκα is to be supplied before the genitives τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστ . κ . τ . λ . But this union is artificial, and the supposed ellipsis without grammatical justification. It would be better to regard τοῦ ἔργου κ . τ . λ . as a development of ὑμῶν in apposition; but neither is this in itself nor in relation to 1Th_1:2 to be commended. Accordingly, ὑμῶν is to be joined to the following substantives, so that its force extends to all the three following points. What Paul approvingly mentions in his prayers are the three Christian cardinal virtues, faith, love, and hope, in which his readers were distinguished, see 1Th_5:8; Col_1:4-5; 1Co_13:13. But Paul does not praise them simply in and for themselves, but a peculiar quality of each—each according to a special potency. First their πίστις , and that their ἔργον τῆς πίστεως . Πίστις is faith subjectively. That τὸ ἔργον τῆς πίστεως is not to be understood periphrastically for τῆς πίστεως [32] (Koppe), nor does it correspond with the pleonastic use of the Hebrew ãÌÈáÈø , is evident, as (1) such a use of the Greek ἔργον is not demonstrable (see Winer’s Grammar, p. 541 [E. T. 768]); and (2) ἜΡΓΟΝ Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς must be similarly understood as the two following double expressions, but in them the additions ΚΌΠΟΥ and ὙΠΟΜΟΝῆς are by no means devoid of import. Also Kypke’s explanation, according to which ἜΡΓΟΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς denotes veritas fidei, is to be rejected, as this meaning proceeds from the contrast of ἔργον and λόγος , of which there is no trace in the passage. Not less erroneous is it, with Calvin, Wolf, and others, to take ἔργον τῆς πίστεως absolutely as faith wrought, i.e. wrought by the Holy Ghost or by God. An addition for this purpose would be requisite; besides, in the parallel expressions (1Th_1:3) it is the self-activity of the readers that is spoken of. In a spiritless manner Flatt and others render ἔργον as an adjective: your active faith. Similarly, but with a more correct appreciation of the substantive, Estius, Grotius, Schott, Koch, Bloomfield, and others: operis, quod ex fide proficiscitur; according to which, however, the words would naturally be replaced by ΠΊΣΤΙς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗ (Gal_5:6). So also de Wette: your moral working proceeding from faith. Hardly correct, as—(1) ΤῸ ἜΡΓΟΝ can only denote work, not working. (2) The moral working proceeding from faith, according to Paul, is love, so that there would here be a tautology with what follows. Clericus refers τὸ ἔργον τῆς πίστεως to the acceptance of the gospel (Opus … erat, ethnicismo abdicato mutatoque prorsus vivendi instituto, christianam religionem profiteri atque ad ejusdem normam vitam in posterum instituere; quae non poterant fieri nisi a credentibus, Jesum vere a Deo missum atque ab eo mandata accepisse apostolos, ideoque veram esse universam evangelii doctrinam); so also Macknight, according to whom the acceptance of the gospel is called an ἜΡΓΟΝ on account of the victory over the prejudices in which the Thessalonians were nourished, and on account of the dangers to which they were exposed by their acceptance of Christianity. But this reason is remote from the context. Chrysostom ( ΤΊ ἘΣΤΙ ΤΟῦ ἜΡΓΟΥ Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς ; ὍΤΙ ΟὐΔῈΝ ὙΜῶΝ ΠΑΡΈΚΛΙΝΕ ΤῊΝ ἜΝΣΤΑΣΙΝ · ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓᾺΡ ἜΡΓΟΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς . ΕἸ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙς , ΠΆΝΤΑ ΠΆΣΧΕ · ΕἸ ΔῈ ΜῊ ΠΆΣΧΕΙς , Οὐ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙς ), Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bisping, and others understand the words of the verification of faith by stedfastness under persecution. This meaning underlying the words appears to come nearest to the correct sense. ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως denotes your work of faith; but as ἜΡΓΟΥ has the emphasis (not ΠΊΣΤΕΩς , as Hofmann thinks), it is accordingly best explained: the work which is peculiar to your faith—by which it is characterized, inasmuch as your faith is something begun with energy, and held fast with resoluteness, in spite of all obstacles and oppositions. This meaning strikingly suits the circumstances of the Epistle.
ΚΑῚ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΠΟΥ Τῆς ἈΓΆΠΗς ] the second point of the apostle’s thanksgiving. Ἀγάπη is not love to God, or to God and our neighbour (Nicol. Lyr.), also not to Christ, as if τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ . Ἰ . Χ . belonged to ἄγαπης (Cornelius a Lapide), still less love to the apostle and his companions (Natal. Alexander: labores charitatis vestrae, quibus nos ex Judaeorum seditione et insidiis eripuistis, quum apud vos evangelium praedicaremus; Estius, Benson), but love to fellow-Christians (comp. Col_1:4). Κόπος τῆς ἀγάπης denotes the active labour of love, which shuns no toil or sacrifice, in order to minister to the wants of our neighbours: not a forbearing love which bears with the faults and weaknesses of others (Theodoret); nor is the genitive the genitive of origin, the work which proceeds from love (so Clericus, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and most critics); but the genitive of possession, the work which is peculiar to love, by which it is characterized. According to de Wette, ΚΌΠΟς Τῆς ἈΓΆΠΗς might refer also to the labour of rulers and teachers (1Th_5:12). Contrary to the context, as 1Th_1:3 contains only the further exposition of 1Th_1:2; but according to 1Th_1:2, the apostle’s thanksgiving extends to all the members of the church ( περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν ), not merely to individuals among them.
The third point of the apostle’s thanksgiving is the ἘΛΠΊς of his readers, and this also not in and for itself, but in its property of ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ . ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ is not the patient waiting which precedes fulfilment (Vatablus), but the constancy which suffers not itself to be overcome by obstacles and oppositions (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact). The genitive here also is not the genitive of origin (Clericus, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield), but of possession: your endurance of hope; that endurance which belongs to your hope, by which hope is characterized. ἐλπίς is here as usual subjective: hoping (otherwise, Col_1:5).
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ . Χ .] does not refer to all the three above-mentioned virtues, “in order to show that they are one and all derived from Christ, and instilled into man by the Holy Spirit” (Olshausen), or are directed to Christ as their object (Cornelius a Lapide, Hofmann), but is the object only of ἐλπίδος . The hope refers to Christ, that is, to His advent, because the judgment and retribution will then take place, and the divine kingdom completed in all its glory will commence.
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ] belongs not to εἰδότες (1Th_1:4), which Musculus thinks possible, and as little to τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ . Ἰ . Χ .; for—(1) the article τοῦ before ἔμπροσθεν must then have been omitted, and (2) an entire abnormal representation of Christ would occur; also not to τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος , or to all the three ideas, to indicate thereby these three virtues as existing before the eyes and according to the judgment of God, and thus as true and genuine (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Aretius, Fromond, Cornelius a Lapide, Baumgarten-Crusius, Auberlen), for in this case the repetition of the article would be expected, and besides, ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ and similar expressions have, in the above sense, always an adjective or corresponding clause; but it belongs—which only is grammatically correct—to μνημονεύοντες , so that μνημονεύοντες ἔμπροσθεν κ . τ . λ . corresponds to μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν (1Th_1:2).
τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ] may mean Him, who is our God and our Father; or Him, who is God, and likewise our Father.
[32] So in essentials Hofmann, who considers τῆς πίστεως as an epexegetical genitive, and converts the double expression into the unimportant saying: “Their doing or conduct consists in this, that they believed.”